（推荐新手看这个帖）我的AW笔记本（内有老外280的分析，资料基本上看这个就够了）

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 157
"There is no such thing as purely objective observation. All observation is subjective; it is always guided by the observer's expectations or desires."

The speaker claims that all observation is subjective--colored by desire and expectation. While it would be tempting to concede that we all see things differently, careful scrutiny of the speaker's claim reveals that it confuses observation with interpretation. In fact, in the end the speaker's claim relies entirely on the further claim that there is no such thing as truth and that we cannot truly know anything. While this notion might appeal to certain existentialists and epistemologists, it runs against the grain of all scientific discovery and knowledge gained over the last 500 years.

It would be tempting to afford the speaker's claim greater merit than it deserves. After all, our everyday experience as humans informs us that we often disagree about what we observe around us. We've all uttered and heard uttered many times the phase "That's not the way I see it!" Indeed, everyday observations--for example, about whether a football player was out of bounds, or about which car involved in an accident ran the red light--vary depending not only on one's spatial perspective but also on one's expectations or desires. If I'm rooting for one football team, or if the player is well-known for his ability to make great plays while barely staying in bounds, my desires or expectations might influence what I think I observe. Or if I am driving one of the cars in the accident, or if one car is a souped-up sports car, then my desires or expectations will in all likelihood color my perception of the accident's events.

However, these sorts of subjective "observations" are actually subjective "interpretations'' of what we observe. Visitors to an art museum might disagree about the beauty of a particular work, or even about which color predominates in that work. In a court trial several jurors might view the same videotape evidence many times, yet some jurors might "observe" an incident of police brutality, will others "observe" the appropriate use of force to restrain a dangerous individual. Thus when it comes to making judgments about what we observe and about remembering what we observe, each person's individual perspective, values, and even emotions help form these judgments and recollections. It is crucial to distinguish between interpretations such as these and observation, which is nothing more than a sensory experience. Given the same spatial perspective and sensory acuity and awareness, it seems to me that our observations would all be essentially in accord--that is, observation can be objective.

Lending credence to my position is Francis Bacon's scientific method, according to which we can know only that which we observe, and thus all truth must be based on empirical observation. This profoundly important principle serves to expose and strip away all subjective interpretation of observation, thereby revealing objective scientific truths. For example, up until Bacon's time the Earth was "observed" to lie at the center of the Universe, in accordance with the prevailing religious notion that man (humankind) was the center of God's creation. Applying Bacon's scientific method Galileo exposed the biased nature of this claim. Similarly, before Einstein time and space were assumed to be linear, in accordance with our "observation." Einstein's mathematical formulas suggested otherwise, and his theories have been proven empirically to be true. Thus it was our subjective interpretation of time and space that led to our misguided notions about them. Einstein, like history's other most influential scientists, simply refused to accept conventional interpretations of what we all observe.

In sum, the speaker confuses observation with interpretation and recollection. It is how we make sense of what we observe, not observation itself, that is colored by our perspective, expectations, and desires. The gifted individuals who can set aside their subjectivity and delve deeper into empirical evidence, employing Bacon's scientific method, are the ones who reveal that observation not only can be objective but must be objective if we are to embrace the more fundamental notion that knowledge and truth exist.

157. "There is no such thing as purely objective observation. All observation is subjective; it is always guided by the observer's expectations or desires."
纯粹客观的观察是不存在的。所有的观察都是主观的；观察总是被观察者的预期或者喜好所左右的。
主观和客观之观察

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 159
"The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds."

This statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools of human minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because machines are human tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I concede the first claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one defines "superiority," and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.

The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all, would any machine even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not. Moreover, I would be hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even machines designed to entertain or amuse us--for example, toy robots, cars and video games, and novelty items--are in fact tools, which their inventors and promoters use for engaging in commerce and the business of entertainment and amusement. And, the claim that a machine can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans whatsoever, is dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such machine. Thus when we develop any sort of machine we always have some sort of end in mind a purpose for that machine.

As for the statement's second claim, in certain respects machines are superior. We have devised machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and speed than human minds ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise machines that are superior in these respects that we devise them--as our tools--to begin with. However, if one defines superiority not in terms of competence in per-forming rote tasks but rather in other ways, human minds are superior. Machines have no capacity for independent thought, for making judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing emotional responses to intellectual problems.

Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on their own, and to develop so-called "emotional intelligence," has been pure fiction. Besides, even in fiction we humans ultimately prevail over such machines--as in the cases of Frankenstein's monster and Hal, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptuous to assert with confidence that humans will always maintain their superior status over their machines. Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human genome research, suggest that within the 21st Century we'll witness machines that can learn to think on their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral sensations, and so forth. In other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we humans attribute our own superiority.

In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to characterize machines as "tools of human minds." And insofar as humans have the unique capacity for independent thought, subjective judgment, and emotional response, it also seems fair to claim superiority over our machines. Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise machines that can truly think for themselves and look out for their own well-being, then query whether these machines of the future would be "machines'' anymore.

159. "The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds."
人类的智慧将总是高于机器，因为机器只是人类智慧的工具。
技术进步对人类社会的影响（类似于影响和决定人类传统）

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 160
"The most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little." 这是从李笑来TOEFL 6分作文里面改编的。

Whether effective leadership requires that a leader consistently follow his or her principles and objectives is a complex issue--one that is tied up in the problem of defining effective leadership in the first place. In addressing the issue it is helpful to consider, in turn, three distinct forms of leadership: business, political, and social-spiritual.

In the business realm, effective leadership is generally defined, at least in our corporate culture, as that which achieves the goal of profit maximization for a firm's shareholders or other owners. Many disagree, however, that profit is the appropriate measure of a business leader's effectiveness. Some detractors claim, for example, that a truly effective business leader must also fulfill additional duties--for example, to do no intentional harm to their customers or to the society in which they operate. Other detractors go further--to impose on business leaders an affirmative obligation to yield to popular will, by protecting consumers, preserving the natural environment, promoting education, and otherwise taking steps to help alleviate society's problems.

Whether our most effective business leaders are the ones who remain consistently committed to maximizing profits or the ones who appease the general populace by contributing to popular social causes depends, of course, on one's own definition of business success. In my observation, as business leaders become subject to closer scrutiny by the media and by social activists, business leaders will maximize profits in the long term only by taking reasonable steps to minimize the social and environmental harm their businesses cause. Thus the two definitions merge, and the statement at issue is ultimately correct.

In the political realm the issue is no less complex. Definitions of effective political leadership are tied up in the means a leader uses to wield his or her power and to obtain that power in the first place. Consider history's most infamous tyrants and despots--such as Genghis Khaan, Stalin, Mao, and Hider. No historian would disagree that these individuals were remarkably effective leaders, and that each one remained consistently committed to his tyrannical objectives and Machiavellian principles. Ironically, it was stubborn commitment to objectives that ultimately defeated all except Khan. Thus in the short term stubborn adherence to one's objectives might serve a political leader's interest in preserving his or her power; yet in the long term such behavior invariably results in that leader's downfall if the principles are not in accord with those of the leader's would-be followers.

Finally, consider social-spiritual leadership. Few would disagree that through their ability to inspire others and lift the human spirit Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King were eminently effective in leading others to effect social change through civil disobedience. It seems to me that this brand of leadership, in order to be effective, inherently requires that the leader remain steadfastly committed to principle. Why? It is commitment to principle that is the basis for this brand of leadership in the first place. For example, had Gandhi advocated civil disobedience yet been persuaded by dose advisors that an occasional violent protest might be effective in gaining India's independence from Britain, no doubt the result would have been immediate forfeiture of that leadership. In short, social-spiritual leaders must not be hypocrites; otherwise, they will lose all credibility and effectiveness.

In sum, strict adherence to principles and objectives is a prerequisite for effective social-spiritual leadership--both in the short and long term. In contrast, political leadership wanes in the long term unless the leader ultimately yields to the will of the followers. Finally, when it comes to business, leaders must strike a balance between the objective of profit maximization--the traditional measure of effectiveness--and yielding to certain broader obligations that society is now imposing on them.

160. "The most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little."
对于一位强有力的领导者来说，最关键的能力就是要对一些原则和目标坚定不移。任何领导如果很频繁的、很轻易的为大众意志而转移的话，他将会一事无成。
少数和多数之领导与大众

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 161
"In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any woman or man as a hero. The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished."

In general, I agree with the assertion that intense media scrutiny nearly always serves to diminish the reputation of society's would-be heroes, for the chief reason that it seems to be the nature of media to look for ways to demean public figures whether heroic or not. Moreover, while in isolated cases our so-called heroes have vindicated themselves and restored their reputations diminished by the media, in my observation these are exceptional cases to the general rule that once slandered, the reputation of any public figure, hero or otherwise, is forever tarnished.

The chief reason why I generally agree with the statement has to do with the forces that motivate the media in the first place. The media generally consist of profit-seeking entities, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their shareholders or other owners. Moreover, our corporate culture has sanctioned this objective by codifying it as a fiduciary obligation of any corporate executive. For better or worse, in our society media viewers, readers, and listeners find information about the misfortunes and misdeeds of others, especially heroic public figures, far more compelling than information about their virtues and accomplishments. In short, we love a good scandal. One need look no further than the newsstand, local television news broadcast, or talk show to find ample evidence that this is the case. Thus in order to maximize profits the media are simply giving the public what they demand scrutiny of heroic public figures that serves to diminish their reputation.

A second reason why I fundamentally agree with the statement is that, again for better or worse, intense media scrutiny raises a presumption, at least in the public's collective mind, that their hero is guilty of some sort of character flaw or misdeed. This presumption is understandable. After all, I think any demographic study would show that the vast majority of people relying on mainstream media for their information lack the sort of critical-thinking skills and objectivity to see beyond what the media feeds them, and to render a fair and fully informed judgment about a public figure--heroic or otherwise.

A third reason for my agreement with the statement has to do with the longer-term fallout from intense media scrutiny and the presumption discussed above. Once tarnished as a result of intense media scrutiny, a person's reputation is forever besmirched, regardless of the merits or motives of the scrutinizers. Those who disagree with this seemingly cynical viewpoint might cite cases in which public figures whose reputations had been tarnished were ultimately vindicated. For example, certain celebrities have successfully challenged rag sheets such as the National Enquirer in the courts, winning large damage awards for libel. Yet in my observation these are exceptional cases; besides, a damage award is no indication that the public has expunged from its collective memory a perception that the fallen hero is guilty of the alleged character flaw or peccadillo.

In sum, the statement is fundamentally correct. As long as the media are motivated by profit, and as long as the public at large demands stories that serve to discredit, diminish, and destroy reputations, the media will continue to harm whichever unfortunate individuals become their cynosures. And the opportunity for vindication is little consolation in a society that seems to thrive, and even feed, on watching heroes being knocked off their pedestals.

161. "In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any woman or man as a hero. The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished."
在今天这个媒体铺天盖地的社会中，人们已经很难把任何人当作英雄了。任何人只要是沦为媒体的话题，那么他注定会名声扫地。
媒体
scrutiny
scrutiny
scru.ti.ny
AHD:[skr›t“n-¶]
D.J.[6skru8tni8]
K.K.[6skrutni]
n.（名词）
【复数】 scru.ti.nies
A close, careful examination or study.
细看，细阅：周密仔细的检查或学习
Close observation; surveillance.
仔细的观察；监督

Middle English scrutinie [taking of a formal vote]
中古英语 scrutinie [进行正式投票]
from Latin scr¿m [inquiry, search]
源自 拉丁语 scr¿m [询问，搜寻]
from scr¿³rº} [to search, examine]
源自 scr¿³rº} [寻找，检查]
from scr¿a [trash]
源自 scr¿a [垃圾]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 164
"Sometimes imagination is a more valuable asset than experience. People who lack experience are free to imagine what is possible and thus can approach a task without constraints of established habits and attitudes."

The speaker asserts that imagination is "sometimes" more valuable than experience because individuals who lack experience can more freely imagine possibilities for approaching tasks than those entrenched in established habits and attitudes. I fundamentally agree; however, as the speaker implies, it is important not to overstate the comparative value of imagination. Examples from the arts and the sciences aptly illustrate both the speaker's point and my caveat.

One need only observe young children as they go about their daily lives to appreciate the role that pure imagination can play as an aid to accomplishing tasks. Young children, by virtue of their lack of experience, can provide insights and valuable approaches to adult problems. Recall the movie Big, in which a young boy magically transformed into an adult found himself in a high-power job as a marketing executive. His inexperience in the adult world of business allowed his youthful imagination free reign to contribute creative--and successful ideas that none of his adult colleagues, set in their ways of thinking about how businesses go about maximizing profits, ever would have considered. Admittedly, Big was a fictional account; yet, I think it accurately portrays the extent to which adults lack the kind of imagination that only inexperience can bring to solving many adult problems.

The speaker's contention also finds ample empirical support in certain forms of artistic accomplishment and scientific invention. History is replete with evidence that our most gifted musical composers are young, relatively inexperienced, individuals. Notables ranging from Mozart to McCartney come immediately to mind. Similarly, the wide-eyed wonder of inexperience seems to spur scientific innovation. Consider the science fiction writer Jules Veme, who through pure imagination devised highly specific methods and means for transporting humans to outer space. What makes his imaginings so remarkable is that the actual methods and means for space flight, which engineers settled on through the experience of extensive research and trial-and-error, turned out to be essentially the same ones Verne had imagined nearly a century earlier!

Of course, there are many notable exceptions to the rule that imagination unfettered by experience breeds remarkable insights and accomplishments. Duke Ellington, perhaps jazz music's most prolific composers, continued to create new compositions until late in life. Thomas Edition, who registered far more patents with the U.S. patent office than any other person, continued to invent until a very old age. Yet, these are exceptions to the general pattern. Moreover, the later accomplishments of individuals such as these tend to build on earlier ones, and therefore are not as truly inspired as the earlier ones, which sprung from imagination less fettered by life experience.

On the other hand, it is important not to take this assertion about artistic and scientific accomplishment too far. Students of the arts, for instance, must learn theories and techniques, which they then apply to their craft whether music performance, dance, or acting. And, creative writing requires the cognitive ability to understand how language is used and how to communicate ideas. Besides, creative ability is itself partly a function of intellect; that is, creative expression is a marriage of one's cognitive abilities and the expression of one's feelings and emotions. In literature, for example, a rich life experience from which to draw ideas is just as crucial to great achievement as imagination. For example, many critics laud Mark Twain's autobiography, which he wrote on his death bed, as his most inspired work. And, while the direction and goals of scientific research rely on the imaginations of key individuals, most scientific discoveries and inventions come about not by sudden epiphanies of youthful star-gazers but rather by years and years of trial-and-error in corporate research laboratories.

In sum, imagination can serve as an important catalyst for artistic creativity and scientific invention. Yet, experience can also play a key role; in fact, in literature and in science it can play just as key a role as the sort of imagination that inexperience breeds.

164. "Sometimes imagination is a more valuable asset than experience. People who lack experience are free to imagine what is possible and thus can approach a task without constraints of established habits and attitudes."
有时候想象力是比经验更有价值的财富。缺少经验的人得以的想象任何可能性，并且由此可以达成一个目标而不受既定习惯和态度的限制。
想象力和经验

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 165
"In any given field, the leading voices come from people who are motivated not by conviction but by the desire to present opinions and ideas that differ from those held by the majority."

I agree with the statement insofar as our leading voices tend to come from people whose ideas depart from the status quo. However, I do not agree that what motivates these iconoclasts is a mere desire to be different; in my view they are driven primarily by their personal convictions. Supporting examples abound in all areas of human endeavor-- including politics, the arts, and the physical sciences.

When it comes to political power, I would admit that a deep-seated psychological need to be noticed or to be different sometimes lies at the heart of a person's drive to political power and fame. For instance, some astute presidential historians have described Clinton as a man motivated more by a desire to be great than to accomplish great things. And many psychologists attribute Napoleon's and Mussolini's insatiable lust for power to a so-called "short-man complex"--a need to be noticed and admired in spite of one's small physical stature.

Nevertheless, for every leading political voice driven to new ideas by a desire to be noticed or to be different, one can cite many other political leaders clearly driven instead by the courage of their convictions. Iconoclasts Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, for example, secured prominent places in history by challenging the status quo through civil disobedience. Yet no reasonable person could doubt that it was the conviction of their ideas that drove these two leaders to their respective places.

Turning to the arts, mavericks such as Dali, Picasso and Warhol, who departed from established rules of composition, ultimately emerge as the leading artists. And our most influential popular musicians are the ones who are flagrantly "different." Consider, for example, jazz pioneers Thelonius Monk and Miles Davis, who broke all the harmonic rules, or folk musician-poet Bob Dylan, who established a new standard for lyricism. Were all these leading voices driven simply by a desire to be different? Perhaps; but my intuition is that creative urges are born not of ego but rather of some intensely personal commitment to an aesthetic ideal.

As for the physical sciences, innovation and progress can only result from challenging conventional theories--that is, the status quo. Newton and Einstein, for example, both refused to blindly accept what were perceived at their time as certain rules of physics. As a result, both men redefined those rules. Yet it would be patently absurd to assert that these two scientists were driven by a mere desire to conjure up "different" theories than those of their contemporaries or predecessors. Surely it was a conviction that their theories were better that drove these geniuses to their places in history.

To sum up, when one examines history's leading voices it does appear that they typically bring to the world something radically different than the status quo. Yet in most cases this sort of iconoclasm is a byproduct of personal conviction, not iconoclasm for its own sake.

165. "In any given field, the leading voices come from people who are motivated not by conviction but by the desire to present opinions and ideas that differ from those held by the majority."
在任何领域当中，对于起领导作用的人，他们的动力不是去肯定他人的想法，而是喜欢提出不同于大多数人的意见和想法。
少数和多数之标新立异的领导
领导者问题
the leading voices   conviction
conviction
con.vic.tion
AHD:[k…n-v¹k“sh…n]
D.J.[k*n6vik.*n]
K.K.[k*n6v!k.*n]
n.（名词）
Law
【法律】
The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.
判罪：陪审团或法官对某人犯有被指控之罪行的判决
The state of being found or proved guilty:
定罪：被发现或证明有罪的状态：
evidence that led to the suspect's conviction.
使嫌疑犯得以定罪的证据
The act or process of convincing.
说服：确信的行为或过程
The state of being convinced.See Synonyms at certainty
确信：被说服的状态参见 certainty
A fixed or strong belief.See Synonyms at opinion
信念：不变的或坚定的信仰参见 opinion

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 167
"It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician."

Is complete honesty a useful virtue in politics? The speaker contends that it is not, for the reason that political leaders must sometimes lie to be effective. In order to evaluate this contention it is necessary to examine the nature of politics, and to distinguish between short-term and long-term effectiveness.

On the one hand are three compelling arguments that a political leader must sometimes be less than truthful in order to be effective in that leadership. The first argument lies in the fact that politics is a game played among politicians--and that to succeed in the game one must use the tools that are part-and-parcel of it. Complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivete, neither of which will earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which those opponents will use to every advantage against the honest politician.

Secondly, it is crucial to distinguish between misrepresentations of fact in other words, lies--and mere political rhetoric. The rhetoric of a successful politician eschews rigorous factual inquiry and indisputable fact while appealing to emotions, ideals, and subjective interpretation and characterizations. Consider, for example, a hypothetical candidate for political office who attacks the incumbent opponent by pointing out only certain portions of that opponent's legislative voting record. The candidate might use a vote against a bill eliminating certain incentives for local businesses as "dear evidence" that the opponent is "anti-business," "bad for the economy," or "out of touch with what voters want." None of these allegations are outright lies; they are simply the rhetorical cant of the effective politician.

Thirdly, politics is a business born not only of idealism but also of pragmatism; after all, in order to be effective a politician must gain and hold onto political power, which means winning elections. In my observation some degree of pandering to the electorate and to those who might lend financial support in reelection efforts is necessary to maintain that position. Modern politics is replete with candidates who refused to pander, thereby mining their own chance to exercise effective leadership.

Although in the short term being less-than-truthful with the public might serve a political leader's interest in preserving power, would-be political leaders who lack requisite integrity ultimately forfeit their leadership. Consider Richard Nixon, whose leadership seemed born not of ideology but of personal ambition, which bred contempt of the very people who sanctioned his leadership in the first place; the ultimate result was his forfeiture of that leadership. In contrast, Ronald Reagan was a highly effective leader largely because he honestly, and deeply, believed in the core principles that he espoused and advocated during his presidency--and his constituency sensed that genuineness and responded favorably to it. Moreover, certain types of sociopolitical leadership inherently require the utmost integrity and honesty. Consider notable figures such as Gandhi and King, both of whom were eminently effective in leading others to practice the high ethical and moral standards which they themselves advocated. The reason for this is simple: A high standard for one's own personal integrity is a prerequisite for effective moral leadership.

To sum up, I concede that the game of politics calls for a certain measure of posturing and disingenuousness. Yet, at the end of the game, without a countervailing measure of integrity, political game-playing will serve to diminish a political leader's effectiveness perhaps to the point where the politician forfeits the game.

167. "It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician."
对于一个英明的政治领导者来说，总是坦白是不可能的。彻底的诚实对于一个政治家来说是无用的美德。
领导者问题
useful
virtue
vir.tue
AHD:[vûr“ch›]
D.J.[6v*8t.u8]
K.K.[6v)t.u]
n.（名词）
Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.
正直，善良：道德上的优点和正直；美德
An example or kind of moral excellence:
美德，德行：一种美德或其实例：
the virtue of patience.
耐心的美德
Chastity, especially in a girl or woman.
贞操：贞操，尤指女孩或女子
A particularly efficacious, good, or beneficial quality; advantage:
优点，长处：尤其灵验的、好的或受益的品质；长处：
a plan with the virtue of being practical.
有着实用性优点的计划
Effective force or power:
效力，力量：
believed in the virtue of prayer.
相信祈祷的力量
virtues Theology The fifth of the nine orders of angels.
virtues 【神学】 道德天使：九级天使中的第五级
Obsolete Manly courage; valor.
【废语】 男子气概：男子汉的勇气；气概

by virtue of或
in virtue of
On the grounds or basis of; by reason of:
借助；凭借；因为：
well off by virtue of a large inheritance.
由于继承了大笔遗产而致富

Middle English vertu
中古英语 vertu
from Old French
源自 古法语
from Latin virt¿s [manliness, excellence, goodness]
源自 拉丁语 virt¿s [男子气，优点，美德]
from vir [man] * see wº-ro-
源自 vir [男人] *参见 wº-ro-

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue
"What is called human nature is really a reflection of the human condition: if all people had a reasonable share of territory and resources, such products of 'human nature' as war and crime would become extremely rare."

Are products of human nature such as war and crime actually products of the human condition--specifically, lack of resources and territory? The speaker claims so. I strongly disagree, however. Whether we look at science and history, or simply look around us in our daily lives, we see ample evidence that human aggression is the product of our nature as humans--and not of our circumstances.

First of all, the claim runs contrary to my personal observation about individual behavior--especially when it comes to males. One need look no further than the local school-ground or kindergarten playroom to see the roots of crime and war. Every school-yard has its bully who delights in tormenting meeker school mates; and in every kindergarten classroom there is at least one miscreant whose habit is to snatch away the favorite toys of classmates--purely for the enjoyment of having seized property from another. And these behaviors are clearly not for want of resources or territory. Thus the only reasonable explanation is that they are products of human nature--not of the human condition.

Secondly, the claim flies in face of what scientists have learned about genetically determined human traits. Many human traits--not just physical ones but psychological ones as well are predetermined at birth. And to a great extent we have inherited our genetic predisposition from our non-human ancestors. One might argue that lower animal species engage in warlike behavior for the main reason that they must do so to protect their territory, their clan, or for food not because of their nature. Yet, this point begs the question; for we humans have been genetically programmed, through the evolutionary process, to behave in similar ways. In other words, doing so is simply our nature.

Thirdly, the claim makes little sense in the context of human history. Prior to the last few centuries the inhabitable regions of our planet provided ample territory and resources--such as food and cultivable land--to accommodate every human inhabitant. Yet our distant ancestors engaged in war and crime anyway. What else explains this, except that it is part of our inherent nature to engage in aggressive behavior toward other humans? Moreover, if we consider the various experiments with Marx's Communism, it becomes clear that the pure Marxist State in which all territory and resources are shared according to the needs of each individual does not work in practice. Every attempt, whether on the macro- or micro-level, has failed at the hands of a few demagogues or despots, who aggress and oppress like playground bullies.

In sum, the author of this statement misunderstands the roots of such phenomena as war and crime. The statement runs contrary to my personal observations of human behavior, to the scientific notions of genetic predisposition and evolution of species, and to the overwhelming lack of evidence that providing ample resources to people solves these problems.

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-3 11:53 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 168
"Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field." 多重状语层层修饰限定。值得细扣

The speaker's assertion that work in any field can be judged only by experts in that field amounts to an unfair generalization, in my view. I would concur with the speaker when it comes to judging the work of social scientists, although I would strongly disagree when it comes to work in the pure physical sciences, as explained in the following discussion. 部分肯定的开头，值得学习

With respect to the social sciences, the social world presents a seamless web of not only anthropogenic but also physical forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of a variety of disciplines. Thus experts from various fields must collectively determine the merit of work in the social sciences. For example, consider the field of cultural anthropology. The merits of researcher's findings and conclusions about an ancient civilization must be scrutinized by biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers.

Specifically, by analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensic scientists can pass judgment on the anthropologist's conjectures about the life expectancy, general well-being, and common causes of death of the population. Geologists are needed to identify the source and age of the materials used for tools, weapons, and structures--thereby determining whether the anthropologist extrapolated correctly about the civilization's economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and so forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments of writings. And astronomers are sometimes needed to determine with the anthropologist's explanations for the layout of an ancient city or the design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and temples is convincing-because ancients often looked to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures.

In contrast, the work of researchers in the purely physical sciences can be judged only by their peers. The reason for this is that scientific theories and observations are either meritorious or not, depending solely on whether they can be proved or disproved by way of the scientific method. For example, consider the complex equations which physicists rely upon to draw conclusions about the nature of matter, time, and space, or the origins and future of the universe. Only other physicists in these specialties can understand, let alone judge, this type of theoretical work. Similarly, empirical observations in astrophysics and molecular physics require extremely sophisticated equipment and processes, which only experts in these fields have access to and who know how to use reliably.

Those who disagree that only inside experts can judge scientific work might point out that the expertise of economists and pubic-policy makers is required to determine whether the work is worthwhile from a more mundane economic or political viewpoint. Detractors might also point out that ultimately it is our philosophers who are best equipped to judge the ultimate import of ostensibly profound scientific discoveries. Yet these detractors miss the point of what I take to be the speaker's more narrow claim: that the integrity and quality of work---disregarding its socioeconomic utility----can be judged only by experts in the work's field.

In sum, in the social sciences no area of inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because fields such as anthropology, sociology, and history are so closely intertwined and even dependent on the physical sciences, experts from various fields must collectively determine the integrity and quality of work in these fields. However, in the purely physical sciences the quality and integrity of work can be adequately judged only by inside experts, who are the only ones equipped with sufficient technical knowledge to pass judgment.

168. "Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field."
批判性的判断在任何领域当中都是没什么用处的，除非它是来自于该领域中的专家。
统一和分歧之专家
critical

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 169
"Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other."

Should politics and morality be treated as though they are mutually exclusive? I strongly agree with the speaker that any person claiming so fails to understand either the one or the other. An overly narrow definition of morality might require complete forthrightness and candidness in dealings with others. However, the morality of public politics embraces far broader concerns involving the welfare of society, and recognizes compromise as a necessary, and legitimate, means of addressing those concerns.

It is wrong-headed to equate moral behavior in politics with the simple notions of honesty and putting the other fellow's needs ahead of one's own----or other ways which we typically measure the morality of an individual's private behavior. Public politics is a game played among professional politicians--and to succeed in the game one must use the tools that are part-and-parcel of it. Complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivete, neither of which will earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which opponents will use to every advantage against the honest politician. Moreover, the rhetoric of a successful politician eschews rigorous factually inquiry and indisputable fact while appealing to emotions, ideals, and subjective interpretation and characterizations. For example, the politician who claims his opponent is "anti-business," "bad for the economy," or "out of touch with what voters want" is not necessarily behaving immorally. We must understand that this sort of rhetoric is part-and-parcel of public politics, and thus kept in perspective does not harm the society--as long as it does not escalate to outright lying.

Those who disagree with the statement also fail to understand that in order to gain the opportunity for moral leadership politicians must engage in certain compromises along the way. Politics is a business born not only of idealism but also of pragmatism insofar as in order to be effective a politician must gain and hold onto political power. In my observation, some degree of pandering to the electorate and to those who might lend financial support for reelection efforts is necessary to maintain that position. Modern politics is replete with candidates who refused to pander, thereby mining their own chance to exercise effective leadership.

Finally, those who claim that effective politicians need not concern themselves with morality fail to appreciate that successful political leadership, if it is to endure, ultimately requires a certain measure of public morality--that is, serving the society with its best interests as the leader's overriding concern. Consider the many leaders, such as Stalin and Hitler, whom most people would agree were egregious violators of public morality. Ultimately such leaders forfeit their leadership as a result of the immoral means by which they obtain or wield their power. Or consider less egregious examples such as President Nixon, whose contempt for the very legal system that afforded him his leadership led to his forfeiture of that leadership. It seems to me that in the short term amoral or immoral public behavior might serve a political leader's interest in preserving power; yet in the long term such behavior invariably results in that leader's downfall.

In sum, I fundamentally agree with the statement. It recognizes that the "game" of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness that we might associate with dubious private morality. And it recognizes that such behavior is a necessary means to the final objective of moral political leadership. Besides, at the end of the political game any politician failing to exercise moral leadership ultimately forfeits the game.

169. "Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other."
那些把***和道德看成是两码事的人是既不懂***也不懂道德的。
***和道德的关系
politics and morality
politics
pol.i.tics
AHD:[p¼l“¹-t¹ks]
D.J.[6p%litiks]
K.K.[6p$l!t!ks]
n.Abbr. pol., polit.（名词）缩写 pol.， polit.
(used with a sing. verb)
（与单数动词连用）
The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
***策略：政府或统治的艺术或科学，特别是指***实体的统治以及对其内部和外部事务的管理和控制，例如一个国家
Political science.
***科学
(used with a sing. or pl. verb)
（与单数或复数动词连用）
The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party:
***活动：政府、***家或政党所从事的活动或事务：
“All politics is local”(Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.)“Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night”(Jeffrey Archer)
“所有的***都是地方性的”(小托马斯P.奥涅尔)“自从我呆在牛津以来***就吸引了我，因为它们每天早晨、中午和晚上都是令人兴奋的”(杰弗里·阿切尔)
The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government:
***策略：治理一个国家或政府所涉及的方法或策略：
The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?
前政权的那套治国方法为新政府的领导人所摒弃。如果保守党政府的政策现在就接近压制性，那当经济不稳定时又能对政府指望什么呢
(used with a sing. or pl. verb)Political life:
（与单数或复数动词连用）***生涯：
studied law with a view to going into politics; felt that politics was a worthwhile career.
为了有朝一日步入政坛而学习法律；感觉到***是一项值得从事的事业
(used with a sing. or pl. verb)Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or a group in order to gain control or power:
（与单数或复数动词连用）***阴谋；***手段：***单位或团体内部为获取统治地位或权力所进行的阴谋或操纵：
Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive.
党羽的***阴谋经常是良好政府的妨碍。公务上的***争斗经常是带削弱性质和招致反效果的
(used with a sing. or pl. verb)Political attitudes and positions:
（与单数或复数动词连用）***态度，***立场：
His politics on that issue is his own business. Your politics are clearly more liberal than mine.
他在那一问题上的态度是他自己的事情。你的***观点显然要比我的更为自由
(used with a sing. or pl. verb)The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.
（与单数或复数动词连用）社会的冲突关系：社会中的人们之间的经常是内部冲突的相互关系

morality
mo.ral.i.ty
AHD:[m…-r²l“¹-t¶, mô-]
D.J.[m*6r#liti8, m%8-]
K.K.[m*6r#l!ti, m%-]
n.（名词）
【复数】 mo.ral.i.ties
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
品德：符合正确的或好的行为标准的品质
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct:
道德规范：关于正确与错误行为的观点组成的系统：
religious morality; Christian morality.
宗教道德；基督教德
Virtuous conduct.
品德高尚的行为
A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
道德观：道德行为规则或教育

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue
"Great advances in knowledge necessarily involve the rejection of authority."

The speaker claims that great advances in knowledge necessarily involve rejection of authority. To the extent that political authority impedes such advances, I agree with this claim. Otherwise, in my view most advances in knowledge actually embrace certain forms of authority, rather than rejecting authority out of hand.

One striking example of how political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge involves what we know about the age and evolution of planet Earth. In earlier centuries the official Church of England called for a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to which the Earth's age is determined to be about 6,000 years. If Western thinkers had continued to yield to the ostensible authority of the Church, the fields of structural and historical geology would never have advanced beyond the blind acceptance of this contention as fact.

A more modern example of how yielding to political authority can impede the advancement of knowledge involves the Soviet Refusenik movement of the 1920s. During this time period the Soviet government attempted not only to control the direction and the goals of its scientists' research but also to distort the outcome of that research. During the 1920s the Soviet government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were engaged in research that the state viewed as a potential threat to its power and authority. Not surprisingly, during this time period no significant advances in scientific knowledge occurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.

However, given a political climate that facilitates free thought and honest intellectual inquiry, great advances in knowledge can be made by actually embracing certain forms of "authority." A good example involves modern computer technology. Only by building on, or embracing, certain well-established laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based semi-conductor technology. Although new biotechnology research suggests that organic, biochemical processors will replace artificial semi-conductors as the computers of the future, it would be inappropriate to characterize this leap in knowledge as a rejection of authority.

In sum, to the extent that political authority imposes artificial constraints on knowledge, I agree that advances in knowledge might require rejection of authority. Otherwise, in my observation advances in knowledge more typically embrace and build on authoritative scientific principles and laws, and do not require the rejection of any type of authority.

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 170
"The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."

Does a nation's greatness lie in the general welfare of its people rather than in the achievements of its artists, rulers, and scientists, as the speaker claims? I find this claim problematic in two respects. First, it fails to define "general welfare." Second, it assumes that the sorts of achievements that the speaker cites have little to do with a nation's general welfare--when in fact they have everything to do with it.

At first blush the speaker's claim might appear to have considerable merit. After all, the overriding imperative for any democratic state is to enhance the general welfare of its citizenry. Yet the speaker fails to provide a clear litmus test for measuring that welfare. When we speak of "promoting the general welfare," the following aims come to mind: public health and safety, security against military invasions, individual autonomy and freedom, cultural richness, and overall comfort--that is, a high standard of living. Curiously, it is our scientists, artists, and political leaders-----or so-called "rulers" who by way of their achievements bring these aims into fruition. Thus, in order to determine what makes a nation great it is necessary to examine the different sorts of individual achievements that ostensibly promote these aims.

Few would disagree that many scientific achievements serve to enhance a nation's general welfare. Advances in the health sciences have enhanced our physical well-being, comfort, and life span. Advances in technology have enabled us to travel to more places, communicate with more people from different walks of life, and learn about the world from our desktops. Advances in physics and engineering make our abodes and other buildings safer, and enable us to travel to more places, and to travel to more distant places, with greater safety and speed. Artistic achievement is also needed to make a nation a better place for humans overall. Art provides inspiration, lifts the human spirit, and incites our creativity and imagination, all of which spur us on to greater accomplishments and help us appreciate our own humanity. Yet the achievements of scientists and artists, while integral, do not suffice to ensure the welfare of a nation's citizens. In order to survive, let alone be great, a nation must be able to defend its borders and to live peaceably with other nations. Thus the military and diplomatic accomplishments of a nation's leaders provide an integral contribution to the general welfare of any nation's populace.

Notwithstanding the evidence that, in the aggregate, individual achievements of the sorts listed above are what promote a nation's general welfare, we should be careful not to hastily assume that a nation is necessarily great merely by virtue of the achievements of individual citizens. Once having secured the safety and security of its citizens, political rulers must not exploit or oppress those citizens. Also, the populace must embrace and learn to appreciate artistic accomplishment, and to use rather than misuse or abuse scientific knowledge. Of particular concern are the many ways in which scientific achievements have served to diminish our quality of life, thereby impeding the general welfare. It is through scientific "achievements" that chemicals in our food, water, and air increase the incidence and variety of cancers; that our very existence as a species is jeopardized by the threat of nuclear warfare; and that greenhouse gases which deplete our ozone layer and heat the Earth's atmosphere threaten civilization itself.

In sum, in asserting that general welfare--and neither the scientific, artistic, nor political achievements of individuals--provides the yardstick for measuring a nation's greatness, the speaker misses the point that general welfare is the end product of individual achievements. Besides, achievements of artists, scientists, and political leaders rarely inure only to one particular nation. Rather, these achievements benefit people the world over. Accordingly, by way of these achievements the world, not just one nation, grows in its greatness.

170. "The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."
一个伟大国家最真实的体现不是它的统治者、艺术家或者科学家的成就，而是他所有老百姓的普通福利（幸福）。
社会精英和人大众
the general welfare
welfare
wel.fare
AHD:[wµl“fâr”]
D.J.[6wel7fW*r]
K.K.[6wWl7fWr]
n.（名词）
Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
健康、幸福和好运气；安康
Prosperity.
繁荣
Welfare work.
福利工作
Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
福利救济：给贫困者的金钱或其它形式的援助，尤指政府提供的
n.attributive.（定语名词）
Often used to modify another noun:
福利：常用来修饰其它名词：
a welfare hotel; welfare families.
福利旅馆；福利家庭

豆豆爱englandUID：2181464

upupupupup

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue
"International relations can never be completely harmonious because many cultures do not share the same values."这个写得极好，分析的深入到位~~

I strongly agree with the speaker's threshold claim that international relations can never be completely harmonious. To assert otherwise would be Pollyannaish and would fly in the face of human history--which is largely a story of power struggles, war, and general discord between nations and cultures. However, the speaker's rationale, although appealing and not without merit, is inadequate to explain why total accord among all nations is impossible. 注意这种让步方式

Supporting the speaker's claim is the fact that each culture has its own distinct ethos-- consisting of its core values, principles, and spirit which defines and distinguishes the culture. And I agree that the failure of one culture to understand the unique ethos of another is what often lies at the root of discord between nations and cultures. An apt current-day illustration of this point involves a certain American Indian tribe in Washington State, and its traditional custom of whale hunting. Environmentalists denounce the practice as unnecessary endangerment of a species. However, underlying this custom is a centuries-old spiritual belief that ceremonial whale-hunting is sacrificial ritual honoring Nature, and an even more fundamental Native American ethos, characterized by a far greater respect for animals and for Nature than the ethos of white Americans.

The sort of unfair judgment exemplified by certain white Americans' denunciation of Native American customs and practices is what sociologists term "ethnocentricity"-- reference to one's own cultural ethos as a standard for judging the values and actions of other people. History informs us all too well that ethnocentricity leads inexorably to disharmony. Virtually all wars are rooted in religious ethnocentricity. Political ethnocentricity results in imperialism--assimilation of any and all peoples with complete disregard or respect for ethos. Understandable resistance to British imperialism during the 19th Century resulted in the oppression and demise of many indigenous peoples of Africa and Indonesia. And ethnocentricity on a societal level can lead to mass persecution, as demonstrated by the legions of citizens and soldiers brainwashed by the Nazis into believing that the Jewish race posed some sort of threat to German society and to the Arian race.

Thus the speaker's contention that harmonious international relations are impossible because of conflicting cultural values finds ample support from history. Yet, as compelling as this argument might be, it nevertheless suffers from two notable deficiencies. First, in spite of their differences the world's mainstream cultures all share certain fundamental tenets--particularly about the dignity of human life and that they all agree upon these tenets, at least tacitly. And people should judge other cultures against such universal standards. Otherwise, the end result is that we find ourselves acquiescing in or even sanctioning war and other such atrocities. Since all cultures share a universal ethos the speaker's rationale seems inadequate. Discord occurs not only as a result of an ethos clash but also upon violation of the universal ethos.

A second problem with the speaker's rationale is that it overlooks the fact that we can find considerable discord within almost every culture. On a microcosmic scale we all observe so-called infighting among members of the same church congregations, political factions, and so forth. On a larger scale infighting is all too evident--from overt gang warfare and civil war to covert corporate espionage and political back-stabbing. Thus even if all cultures were to share the same ethos the promise of complete harmony would still be an illusory one. In short, contentiousness seems to be part of human nature.

To sum up, I agree with the speaker that complete harmony among nations is unrealistic, but not just because of conflicting cultural values; it runs contrary to human nature. Yet, the outlook for international relations is not necessarily so grim. An enlightened understanding of the ethos of other cultures, and of our own cultural bias, can foster a universal ethos of respect for human dignity and life. The end result would be to stem, or at least minimize, discord among nations and cultures.

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 171
"People who pursue their own intellectual interests for purely personal reasons are more likely to benefit the rest of the world than are people who try to act for the public good."这片我好像以前分析过，特眼熟

Are people who make the greatest contributions to society those who pursue their personal intellectual interests, as the speaker asserts? Or are they the ones who focus instead on areas that are most likely to benefit society?这种开头不提倡，感觉把读者作傻瓜耍。 I strongly agree with the speaker, for three reasons.

First of all, by human nature we are motivated to pursue activities in which we excel. To compel people to focus their intellectual interests only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today's preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to researching the effectiveness of affirmative-action legislation in reducing workplace discrimination. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole. Yet the aggregate effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world's scholars and researchers.

Secondly, it is unusual avenues of personal interest that most often lead to the greatest contributions to society. Intellectual and scientific inquiry that breaks no new ground amount to wasted time, talent, and other resources. History is laden with quirky claims of scholars and researchers that turned out stunningly significant--that the sun lies at the center of our universe, that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from other life forms, to name a few. One current area of unusual research is terraforming---creating biological life and a habitable atmosphere where none existed before. This unusual research area does not immediately address society's pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to society than preventing its extinction?

Thirdly, to adopt a view that runs contrary to the speaker's position would be to sanction certain intellectual pursuits while proscribing others which smacks of thought control and political oppression. It is dangerous to afford ultimate decision-making power about what intellectual pursuits are worthwhile to a handful of regulators, legislators, or elitists, since they bring to bear their own quirky notions about what is worthwhile, and since they are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling which renders them untrustworthy in any event. Besides, history informs us well of the danger inherent in setting official research priorities. A telling modern example involves the Soviet government's attempts during the 1920s to not only control the direction and the goals of its scientists' research but also to distort the outcome of that research----ostensibly for the greatest good of the greatest number of people. During the 1920s the Soviet government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were viewed as threats to the state's authority. Not surprisingly, during this time period no significant scientific advances occurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.

Those who would oppose the speaker's assertion might argue that intellectual inquiry in certain areas, particularly the arts and humanities, amounts to little more than a personal quest for happiness or pleasure, and therefore is of little benefit to anyone but the inquirer. This specious argument overlooks the palpable benefits of cultivating the arts. It also ignores the fact that earnest study in the humanities affords us wisdom to know what is best for society, and helps us understand and approach societal problems more critically, creatively, and effectively. Thus, despite the lack of a tangible nexus between certain areas of intellectual inquiry and societal benefit, the nexus is there nonetheless.

In sum, I agree that society is best served when people are allowed unfettered freedom of intellectual inquiry and research, and use that freedom to pursue their own personal interests. Engaging one's individual talents in one's particular area of fascination is most likely to yield advances, discoveries, and a heightened aesthetic appreciation that serve to make the world a better and more interesting place in which to live.

171. "People who pursue their own intellectual interests for purely personal reasons are more likely to benefit the rest of the world than are people who try to act for the public good."
能够造福社会的是那些纯粹出于个人原因而追求自己兴趣知识的人，而不是那些打算为大众谋福利的人。
个人和整体之动机